SUPREME'S BUFFER ZONE MORE IMPORTANT TO NATION THAN WOMEN'S RIGHTS

Justice Roberts (photo courtesy of Business Week).

Justice Roberts, in response to the question of whether it is problematic to enjoy a 98 foot buffer zone around the Supreme Court while striking down a 35 foot buffer zone for women entering or leaving a women's health clinic, said, not at all, and that it "prevents the appearance of the court as a body swayed by external influence."

He characterizes abortion clinic protesters not as protesters, but as "counselors who seek to engage in personal, caring, consensual conversations with women." And it's obvious, isn't it, that one cannot have a personal, caring, consensual conversation from 35 feet away?

I am disgusted by Roberts' lack of rational thought. He clearly disregarded everything said during arguments in defense of the buffer zone. He clearly thought he knew better, and was more informed of the reality of what women endure when trying to access a women's health clinic than he is. Roberts' statements also make clear his antipathy for women, and for a woman to make a decision about her reproductive health and destiny. Does he think that allowing "sidewalk counselors" (who "advocate" against baby killing with horrid pictures and harsh words of damnation) access to women seeking birth control is going to SWAY them? If so, it is apparent he believes that women need to be swayed.

With his statements, Roberts expresses his underlying belief that women are incapable of acting in their own best interests, or staying the course they've chosen. Women must be both stupid and impressionable. By assuming that protesters intend to engage in meaningful and consensual conversations, and that it may persuade a woman to change her mind about seeking an abortion, he assumes the best about protesters and the worst about women.

After the birth of my son, I had several miscarriages. The last one was particularly awful because my body did not reject the non-viable fetus. That's right. I had a fetus in my womb that was not alive. No fetal heartbeat. My doctor told me my body would reject it, but it wasn't happening. I called the doctor about two weeks later to schedule a D&C (also known as an abortion). My husband and I were sent to the same clinic that performs abortions in our area.

I think it's safe to say my procedure was NOT an abortion in the common use of the word. I think it's safe to say the procedure was medically necessary to prevent my body from going through a complete pregnancy which, because the fetus was dead, was not healthy for me (especially because the birth of my son resulted in primary high blood pressure - 180/120 - stroke numbers). 

Yet, as we walked to the entrance, protesters pressed horrible pictures into my hands; they hollered at me and my husband; they tried to block our ingress to the building bodily, and they moralized. Oh, how they moralized! These people thought they had a right to tell us we were bad people for killing our baby, even though they had absolutely no idea why we were there that day.

So, it is from personal experience that I can assure readers that those people who tried to intimidate me, those fools who knew nothing about me or my circumstances, those aggressive, mean-spirited people trying to impose their will on me, had NO relation to caring people whatsoever. There was no indication of any wish to provide counsel or communicate facts or even beliefs held dear. Their goal was to stop me from entering that building at any cost. They did not care about my doing the "right thing," only that they prevented me from doing the "wrong thing." They are the most self-centered, illogical, self-righteous idiots I have ever seen. They do not protest so much as delight in causing other humans pain and misery. It is my considered opinion that such protesters only feel like it's been a good day when they know they've made women cry, and men angry, and made several people lose their cool.

(I felt pity for any teenage girl trying to pass through the gauntlet I endured. To think she might have to visit the clinic more than once while addressing her gynecological health was outrageous. More than one visit is often necessary if dealing with birth control, STD's, pre-natal appointments, follow-up exams . . . so many things other than abortion.)

As mentioned, my fetus was dead already. Sure, the protesters had no idea. But isn't that the point? That I have a right to seek medical care for reasons of my own, without being harassed and abused by strangers? That if they really, really care about me, and want to counsel me, they would not have behaved with such extreme hostility?

Those people enjoyed my distress, and were tickled to think they had provoked it.

My ugly ordeal, from learning my baby was not going to be born, that my son wasn't going to have a little sister or brother, to facing the bitter hatred of the protesters, occurred before Hill v. Colorado, the first case upholding the notion of an 8 foot buffer zone around women's health clinics. Looking back to that period, I recall murders of abortion doctors and nurses, violence by protesters, and the real worry that women's rights were being completely overlooked. I would have loved being allowed the dignity 8 feet can provide as I lived through that day.

I honestly believe that my right to travel to and from a medical facility are at least as important as the right of a Supreme Court Justice to travel to and from their place of work. I think the staff of women's health clinics have just as much a right to get to their place of work as the Justices do. It is ONLY the entitled ego of Justice Roberts that tells him his right is greater than the rights of others to do the same thing -- to go to work unmolested . . . to live their lives unmolested.

Dear Justice Roberts, 

Climb down off your gilded pedestal and rejoin the world, please, and start looking out for the people of the country. We ought to be able to rely on you to think of the greater good, and not your own biases, when considering any issue of our rights. We ought to be able to rely on you to ferret out facts, if needed, rather than being swayed by emotions and personal beliefs. Worse still, you give the appearance of having been SWAYED by corporate interests, and it pisses us off.

Sincerely,

America

We, The People, Are Suing YOU, Mr. Boehner

(Photo courtesy of WikiMedia.)

WE, THE PEOPLE, ARE SUING YOU,

MR. BOEHNER

I came across a page on Facebook that was started only days ago that declared an intent to sue House funny man John Boehner for his abject failure to do his job, and for his obstructionist tactics meant to prevent President Obama from doing the job WE elected him to do. My immediate reaction was, "How can I help?"

So, in that effort, I invite anyone who is interested in helping or joining the effort to request to be added to the group We The People Are Suing You Mr. Boehner.

Dana Petty-Koenig is this group's founder. Dana has actually been interested in this idea for some time, and has gone so far as to pursue the concept with friends who are lawyers and law professors. The fact that people involved in legal fields have been intrigued by the idea and willing to put their time into examining whether it could be done tells me that perhaps this is an idea who's time has come.

BOBBY SCHILLING -- REGULAR GUY (AND NOT A GOP LACKEY!)

(Photo courtesy of WikiMedia.)

GOP ex-Rep. Bobby Schilling is seeking his old seat against Democratic Rep. Cheri Bustos in Illinois' 17th District. In a recent radio interview, Schilling said:

"These increases, these are on our working poor, our middle class, hardworking taxpayers here across the United States of America. And now these folks are going to have to decide am I going to pay this premium or am I going to go buy some milk and groceries for the house. It's really getting tough for everyone. Everyone that I talk to, I don't hear them saying 'Hey, I'm doing great!'

And the folks that are living paycheck-to-paycheck, which is most Americans, including myself, is that, you know, this is not something that you want to be putting out when you've got a kid that wants to play sports or you want to take a trip for vacation. Instead, you've got to funnel your money over to Obamacare, which is something you might never have to use."

Keep in mind that Schilling earned $174,000 per year when he was in Congress. He has made $100,000 annually since he left Congress, too. 

And Schilling's no slouch in the assets department, with listed assets amounting to between $245,000 and $660,000, according to financial disclosure forms submitted by him. According to income statistics for the district in which he lives, the median income earned by potential constituents is $42,500 per year.

Yet Schilling feels justified in complaining about "Obamacare" to people who will be voting for, or against him, as if he's just one of the regular folks who struggle to make ends meet on a daily basis. I'd venture a guess: most of the people Schilling hopes to represent just WISH they had his problems.

Most of his constituents don't debate the pros and cons of whether they can afford to "take a trip for vacation." Most of his constituents don't get to go on vacation, though some may enjoy a "stay-cation." Many of the people living in Illinois' 17th District actually DO know what it's like to be forced to decide whether to buy milk and groceries, or to pay the electric bill in full this month. For Schilling to associate himself with the "working poor" is an affront to people who really work their asses off and yet still fail to breathe easy about money, even for a little while.

And what really gets my goat is the way that Schilling breaks with a common GOP theme to benefit himself -- the GOP clearly believes that the "working poor, our middle class" are among those categorized as "TAKERS." The working poor who need the subsidy provided by the ACA, those who receive food-stamps, those who get a tax break for EIC and who get a tax refund that exceeds the amount of taxes paid during the tax year are all lumped together under the tag "TAKERS."

In addition, after researching the question of whether Schilling is bionic or immortal (the answer is no, he is not), I find no evidence suggesting that his claim that Obamacare is "something you might never have to use" has any validity. MOST OF US WILL, IN FACT, HAVE TO USE THE DREADED OBAMACARE TO RECEIVE HEALTH CARE AT VARIOUS TIMES IN OUR LIVES. MOST OF US ACTUALLY FILL PRESCRIPTIONS, NEED BIRTH CONTROL, GET PREGNANT, HAVE KIDS WHO GET SICK, OR DEVELOP CANCER OR ASTHMA OR DIABETES, OR... well, the list goes on.

In fact, Schilling's representation of himself as a regular guy with regular concerns is most certainly the kind of act one puts on to deceive the voters, as he surely will continue to beat the GOP drum if he is elected. If elected, WHO WILL SCHILLING SUPPORT? WHY, SCHILLING AND THE GOP AND THE CORPORATE INTERESTS THAT THE PARTY LOVES SO MUCH, OF COURSE!

Why would anyone expect him to become a man of the people, when being a GOP tool has been such a gift to him?

'GREED IS GOOD' (AND OTHER HALF-TRUTHS)

(Photo courtesy of deviantart.net.)

Are Ayn Rand and Gordon Gekko the same person?

Rand posited that pure, unadulterated selfishness leads to a greater good. Gekko's famous line was, "Greed is good."

Both summations of the link between greed and a rosy result bolster the ideas that are beloved by unapologetic corporatists. But in reality, greed is NOT good, and being greedy has NOT led to a greater good. Being greedy has, in fact, led to a world where people believe with all of their hearts that their greed has nothing to do with other people's misfortune.

In the Rand or Gekko philosophy, such a person's driven, focused pursuit of personal wealth and/or power seems to nicely dovetail with being beneficial to society in general. Clearly, they tell themselves, they are a mover and shaker, a money-maker. One who rules the universe simply MUST have an impact on those beneath them. And because of all the accumulated wealth they see when they view themselves in the mirror, it follows that they rain wealth down upon others. Hell, everything they touch turns to gold; they have the Midas touch.

This self-delusion isn't always a horribly bad thing. But it is always a very bad thing when the deluded individual decides to venture into politics. To fool yourself into believing you can do no wrong, that what is good for you is good for everyone, can be dangerous. In a CEO, the belief is somewhat understandable and perhaps even has some truth, but in a representative of the people, it is disastrous.

Plus, there's the whole idea of others being beneath them, less important, less vital to the "community." It should be easy to see that our movers and shakers have a firm, unshakable belief that they know better than an average citizen what is good for our country. And they may do what's right for them, but they have lost the ability to view our world in terms of what's good for us. This disconnect, this thinking that greed is good is being played out in our environment, in our politics, in our daily lives. We are a decade away from water becoming the most critical issue of our times, and yet big energy has no desire to look out for OUR resources because big energy is looking out for itself by making serious claims that what is OURS is theirs.

Think about religious freedom. Historically, the reason for a separation between church and state was so that people could worship as they wished without fear of reprisals, and that was what the "freedom" part was. Nowadays, religious freedom isn't about the freedom to worship how you choose; it's about enforcing your religious freedom as dominant to the beliefs held by others. Today, religious freedom is about being able to show that YOUR freedom of religion allows for additional protection -- even from federal laws passed that are meant to lift up the masses. If a law hampers your ability to use your religion in a primary way in the face of what others believe, the law is attacked as unconstitutional.

When "reprisals" for religious practices were a real threat, such reprisals could include any numbers of heinous acts, including death. Today's "reprisals" seem to be more of a "He said Happy Kwaanza instead of Merry Christmas" sort of thing, and this is portrayed as a war on Christianity. If freedom from violent, possibly deadly reprisal for one's religious practices is the salient feature of religious freedom, how can the Supreme Court really decide that it is a violation of a corporate entity's religious freedom to have to "pay" for birth control?

More to the point of this essay, how is it that this type of corporate greed (i.e. not "paying" for the array of available methods of birth control for employees) can be seen as anything BUT Gekko-like? This is a circumstance where the corporate ownership's interests are seemingly of equal or greater value than the interests of the very real people who work for them. It is a fine example of how greed is actually not so good.

When one factors in the issue of cost, it becomes even more clear that this particular brand of greed is one that is about power more than money. It is less costly to businesses when employees make conscious decisions about when to start, or add to a family. It is more costly to business and especially to society at large when unplanned pregnancy derails the future plans of employees. Babies are expensive. Birth control helps to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Birth control helps prevent the need for abortion.

Yet, in the U.S., the GOP and Tea Party seem determined to impose their "moralism" on everyone. Without access to affordable birth control (and it really does cost more than $9.00 a month), and without access to safe medical intervention, there will be more babies for the country to take care of. Like it or not, if you don't like abortion, you had better appreciate the role of birth control, because the ONLY other option is to face the fact that there will be a far greater need to fork over for kids you have no part in creating.

In the current world, corporate freedoms exceed those of the individual and the rest of us are not looking at a very rosy result. In the current world, the wealthy have more political clout; they have more say than the rest of us, because they pay for OUR representatives' campaigns. Once OUR representative gets into office, they are indebted to those who paid for the win. And now, the wealthy and big corporations ... all big money interests, in fact ... are using our Constitution against us, because they are so greedy that they use our system for themselves, exclusively.

Every House bill that I've taken the time to review this year gives big business something at our expense. No matter what the bill is about, somehow business is benefiting, and WE are intended to pay the freight. Our highway bill, a bill to help feed the hungry -- it doesn't matter what the issue is. Proposals of law made by the House have one thing in common: businesses get major tax breaks and the national debt is increased for years to come. New IRS law is being written into each and every bill the House passes, including the de-funding IRS enforcement departments.

And still the GOP and Tea Party SAY that Obama is bankrupting the country.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since the GOP and the Tea Party want to impose all their morals on the country, I think it's fair to ask which morals are more important. Is it more important that government be small, that welfare to individuals is limited, that business be allowed all the religious, regulatory and financial freedom that might, someday, allow them to trickle down? OR, is it more important to outlaw a woman's right to reproductive autonomy? With reproductive autonomy, of course, women can participate in the world of work. Women can contribute to the household and families can be managed properly by husbands and wives, together. Women and their physicians can work together to care for her reproductive system in order to reduce her health care costs, have more healthy babies, and reduce her maternal morbidity rate. Currently, women die during childbirth in the U.S. in greater numbers than in 59 of 180 countries. U.S. women die during childbirth as much as in some third world countries because of limited access to affordable pre-natal and regular health care.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, back to the original question: IS GREED ACTUALLY GOOD?

As a product of the 80's, and as someone who adored Wall Street's Gordon Gekko, I have to say that in reality, greed is still just greed, one of the sins we are warned against. There is no real redeeming feature of outright greed, because greed does not, in fact, allow for extending it's largesse to other, less greedy or less fortunate people.

IMMIGRATION

(Photo courtesy of WikiMedia.)

OUR SOUTHERN BORDER IN CRISIS

(OR IS IT OUR BELIEFS THAT ARE IN CRISIS?)

I don't presume to know the answers to what's happening in Texas. I do feel confident that when nearly 60,000 kids show up and turn themselves in to border control agents, something unusual is going on. Unlike the illegal immigrants we've come to expect who will do everything they can to avoid crossing paths with a border control agent, these kids are darn near calling, "Yoo hoo! Will you come take me in now, por favor?"

I began to look at the issue of immigration and tried to identify what is sending all these kids north. What I found was that these children are running away from hometowns with the world's worst murder rates, the world's most dangerous streets and the world's most deadly environments. They seek a better life and their parents so desperately want the kids to have one that many are sent away from their families on a long, arduous, dangerous journey to the U.S. by themselves.

Though I can't personally get behind the decision to send your kids off to another country on their own, I can accept that, under the circumstances faced at home, tens of thousands of parents made the decision out of desperation.

So, let's talk about immigration. To apply for an immigration visa, a U.S. citizen can submit a petition for a spouse, a child, a parent or a brother or sister. A U.S. "lawful citizen" -- one who possesses a green card -- can file an immigration petition for a spouse or unmarried son or daughter. This is considered sponsorship of an immigrant and is only available to immediate family members, as noted (Dept. of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs).

Within a year of an immigrant's arrival in the U.S., their sponsor must apply for a visa or petition. If an undocumented family member has been in the U.S. for more than a year, they are considered illegal citizens and they must leave the U.S. for up to 10 years before re-applying for a visa. According to many sources I researched, it is common for illegal adult citizens to never begin the process. They fear providing personal information because they may be deported if they lose their case.

Despite what the Dept. of State website indicates (above), other sources I researched indicate that siblings from Mexico and the Philippines may wait for 12 to 17 years before a visa is issued. Mexico and the Philippines, in fact, have the longest waiting periods for all visa types of any country. As a result, many are critical of the extended wait for approval of family visas.

Work visas are another route to U.S. citizenship. However, these are limited in number and few are allocated for unskilled or uneducated workers.

Asylum is another route toward legal immigration. Asylum applications must be filed within one year of arrival in the U.S. Currently, only two reasons are viewed as valid for seeking asylum: (1) Persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political views, gender or orientation, or membership in a particular social group that is subject to persecution, and (2) fear of persecution for the listed reasons.

Immigration advocates are trying to gain inclusion for a third type of group, based on being part of a social group defined as teens or children who are likely to be recruited and/or coerced by gangs. It is thought that this potential group would help many of the kids amassing at our southern border. It should be noted that the U.S. Executive Office for Immigration Review does not presently track the number of asylum-seekers who could be included in this proposed group.

The immigration argument centers around issues like: 

• Validity of the circumstances claimed by those who wish to become U.S. citizens;
• cost to the U.S.; and
• lately, diseases like the Ebola virus.

Additionally, anti-immigration groups assert that:

• The system is too lenient in granting citizenship;
• hopeful immigrants are lying about the conditions back home, reporting persecution when their reasons are economic;
• these young people are here to take our jobs, and
• to form a Democratic voting block in accordance with President Obama's diabolical plot.

Such groups protest that these poor children will undermine our freedoms and values, which implies that our values include locking kids up like dogs and offering them no assistance or access to the very laws meant to address immigration issues like these. The fact that former-President Bush signed into law the applicable legislation is ignored in favor of blaming Obama.

Claims like these by self-proclaimed patriots have no weight behind them. Have they traveled to Honduras? Have they given polygraphs to the kids? Have they researched or studied economics in South America or the effects of the U.S. War On Drugs that has wrought havoc in so many places to the south of us? No, they have not. These arguments serve only to emphasize the bigotry of some Americans toward those who are less fortunate.

A more legitimate claim (at least on the surface) is that the influx of immigrants would be a burden on schools, the health care system, transportation, water and other municipal services.

The least valid claim is being made by Michele Bachmann, Louie Gohmert and their ilk -- that these kids are bringing diseases like Ebola into the U.S. Aside from the fact that the Ebola virus has never been found outside of Africa, it is a verified fact that even in countries as violent as Honduras, kids are vaccinated at rates greater than are children in the U.S. currently. This is thanks to our politicians publicly denouncing vaccination requirements as being governmental over-reach (yes, Bachmann and Gohmert are leaders of the pack). By pandering to the Jenny McCarthy's of the world, the U.S. has allowed parents to decide NOT to vaccinate their children. Diseases that had been all but eradicated are on the rise right here in the US of A.

With all these poor children coming to our border in search of something better than they left, the same pols who weakened vaccination policy are now squawking about the disease-ridden masses at the border.

By blatantly reversing on the importance of vaccinations, such politicians come off as the racists they are.

(I hope we don't get THEM sick!)

Immigrant advocates point out the grave dangers these kids are facing at home. They point out that illegal immigrants are coming all the time and if we fail to find a way to assimilate them into our country legally, illegal immigration will only increase.

More compelling is the argument of economist Robert Reich. He asserts that our population is becoming older and that there are certain truths about population that only immigrants will help us meet. We need a certain number of younger workers for each and every senior citizen in order for the economy to work. The economy is stimulated when more people contribute to it. When more people are spending money, the economy improves. Please take a few moments to view Mr. Reich's video on the topic to get a much better explanation of the economic principles that relate to immigration.

However, critics (who generally say they agree with Robert Reich's take on most things) say that until there are more jobs available in the U.S., adding more job-seekers only hurts the out-of-work Americans we already have. Critics also point out that population growth is a major issue. Population has grown worldwide by 7.5 million in the past three years and three months. Corporate outsourcing of jobs and the recent trend of corporations moving out of the U.S. is creating a real problem in the U.S. in terms of the numbers of good jobs available, as well.

As promised, I don't claim to have the answers, but perhaps by presenting a more complete view of the issue as a whole can help us join the discussion.

Crazy's Latest Nutty Theory

(Photo courtesy of WikiMedia.)

MICHELLE BACHMAN

TRANSCRIPT FROM APPEARANCE ON RIGHT WING WATCH RADIO

REPORTED 07/30/2014

 

MB:  

“A foster child by definition IS a ward of the state. We have 400,000 foster children in this country, and now President Obama is trying to bring all those foreign nationals, the illegal aliens into the country and he has said that he will put them in the foster care system, well... I will tell you from personal experience, we don’t have enough foster parents now in the country for the kids in America, we ... certainly don’t have enough foster parents for all of the illegal aliens that the President is trying to bring in right now, but again, that’s more kids that you can see how (unintelligible), we can’t imagine doing this ...”

male voice (host):  

“Yeah.”

MB:  

“ … but if you have a hospital and they are gonna get millions of dollars in government grants that they can conduct medical research on somebody, and a ward of the state can’t say 'noooo,' a little kid can’t say 'no' if they’re a ward of the state, so here you could have this institution getting millions of dollars from our government to do medical experimentation, and a kid can’t even say no; it’s sick.”

Male voice (host):  

“Follow the money.”

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

It looks like Michelle Bachman didn’t pull this theory straight out of her butt, BUT the situation on which she bases her theory is only sort of comparable. SORT OF, being the operable words. Bachman has proposed “Justina’s Law”
in response to a situation having the following elements:

• Justina was ill and went to her longtime gastroenterologist and was diagnosed with mitochondrial disease (the diagnosis occurred at Tufts Medical Center);
• Justina’s doctor moved to Boston Children’s Hospital, and when she got sick, that’s where she was hospitalized;
• While at Boston Children’s Hospital, a new team of doctors diagnosed her with a somatoform disease (a mental disorder that causes sufferers to present symptoms suggestive of physical disorders);
• Justina’s parents hated the new diagnosis and tried to take her home;
• The hospital refused and filed an allegation of medical child abuse against the parents;
• DCF got involved and took custody of Justina. DCF placed Justina in psychiatric care and excluded the parents from making decisions.

It appears that, aside from Glen Beck, actual attention paid to the heavily covered story has been limited. 

Now, here is where it gets interesting …

It appears that Bachman and her ilk now believe that Boston Children’s Hospital has received a government grant for the purpose of studying somatoform disease on Justina, who is now a ward of the state since DCF has limited her parents’ role in decision making relating to her care.

BCH’s written policy can be found here:

How Bachman and her cohorts can misconstrue this clear policy meant to protect wards of the state and then publicly decry it as a perversion carried out by the nation’s President is beyond me.

How Bachman and her cohorts could USE Justina's situation to extrapolate this muddled theory into a full-blown conspiracy is absurd.

How Bachman and her cohorts could create and promote such a fabrication ought to prove that they do not seek to improve our lot, but to further subvert our nation's ability to move forward, just as they've done at every turn since President Obama was elected to his first term.

CALIFORNIA CRISIS - TO WET OR NOT TO WET

CALIFORNIANS GETTING MIXED MESSAGES

FROM STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

In reading up on my state's drought crisis, I came across an article in The Desert Sun which pointed out a real conundrum. Residents of the City of Glendora who are concerned about the drought and who choose to limit their water consumption may find themselves in hot water (pun intended) with the city.

The Golden State has approved mandatory outdoor water restrictions, with fines for excessive watering of lawns set at $500.00. But Glendora's city government is sending out notices of violation to residents who are not keeping their lawns green enough. The fine...yep, it's also $500.00...is payable to the city if the situation is not fixed within 60 days of receipt of the notice. Glendora's notice of violation says:

"Despite the water conservation efforts, we wish to remind you that limited watering is still required to keep landscaping looking healthy and green."

Complacency by cities and residents has prompted the state water board to require all water agencies to adopt emergency drought plans. The state has also approved $500.00 fines to be issued to water wasters. Felicia Marcus, the state board's chairwoman is quoted as saying:

"...a brown lawn should be a badge of honor because it shows you care about your community."

Neighbors are less forgiving of a brown lawn, however. Homeowners associations in California aren't allowed to punish residents who restrict outdoor watering because of an executive order signed by Governor Jerry Brown three months ago, but neighborhoods not governed by an association seem to be engaged in taking corrective actions when a neighbor shows their desire to conserve our most endangered resource.

The governor's office condemns cities that are threatening residents with fines for reducing outdoor watering, but has not acted to overrule cities, like Glendora, that are issuing notices of intent to fine residents who fail to green-up their lawns.

The California Association of Code Enforcement Officers has weighed in, as well. Al Baker, the association's president says:

"During a drought or non-drought, residents have the right to maintain their landscaping the way they want to, so long as it's aesthetically pleasing and it's not blighted."

The result of all this conflicting information is that Californians seem to be having trouble giving our water shortage the attention it deserves. 

ADDITION TO STORY:
Southern California finally got some rain, and in keeping with our all or nothing approach to weather, the rain came down in buckets. Our local mountains received as many as 4 1/2 inches of rain, causing flash floods. One man died when his vehicle was swept off the road by debris. Many cars were submerged by flood waters, and several people needed to be rescued from their cars and treated for hypothermia.

The rain we got will, of course, make it harder for us to believe in the need for drought measures despite our very serious drought conditions.